On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 14:25 -0800, Quim Gil wrote:
What about removing the LATER resolution from our Bugzilla?
Picking this up again.
Reading the postings again I mostly see support for dropping RESOLVED
LATER.
Daniel uses this for tickets whose solution is out of our control.
As mentioned
On Nov 13, 2012 1:05 PM, Andre Klapper aklap...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 14:25 -0800, Quim Gil wrote:
What about removing the LATER resolution from our Bugzilla?
Picking this up again.
Reading the postings again I mostly see support for dropping RESOLVED
LATER.
Daniel
Hi, trying to find the simplest path:
On 11/13/2012 04:04 AM, Andre Klapper wrote:
Assuming agreement that RESOLVED LATER is deprecated and lowest priority
is used,
* some community members need to adjust their Bugzilla queries to
exclude such tickets.
They will find out those
2012/11/13 Quim Gil quim...@gmail.com:
* we need to go through all RESOLVED LATER tickets, reopen them by
setting appropriate values (lowest priority, upstream), and
explain why (pointing to this thread). Help welcome.
Since free time is a luxury, what about simply a
* we need to go through all RESOLVED LATER tickets, reopen them by
setting appropriate values (lowest priority, upstream), and
explain why (pointing to this thread). Help welcome.
Since free time is a luxury, what about simply a bulk change TO NEW /
LOWEST. I know
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Quim Gil quim...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/13/2012 04:04 AM, Andre Klapper wrote:
Assuming agreement that RESOLVED LATER is deprecated and lowest priority
is used,
* some community members need to adjust their Bugzilla queries to
exclude such
On 11/13/2012 10:05 AM, Nabil Maynard wrote:
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Quim Gil quim...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/13/2012 04:04 AM, Andre Klapper wrote:
Assuming agreement that RESOLVED LATER is deprecated and lowest priority
is used,
* some community members need to adjust
On 11/13/2012 11:54 AM, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
Once no RESOLVED LATER tickets remain, I can remove the resolution.
Silence means approval.
No it doesn't.
The above exchange really confuses me.
I'm not sure what else silence could mean when someone explicitly tells
you (as Andre has) If
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Mark A. Hershberger m...@everybody.orgwrote:
On 11/13/2012 11:54 AM, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
Once no RESOLVED LATER tickets remain, I can remove the resolution.
Silence means approval.
No it doesn't.
The above exchange really confuses me.
I'm not
On 11/13/2012 02:07 PM, Nathan Larson wrote:
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Mark A. Hershberger
m...@everybody.orgwrote:
On 11/13/2012 11:54 AM, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
Silence means approval.
No it doesn't.
The above exchange really confuses me.
Perhaps it should've been silence
On Tue, 2012-11-13 at 14:16 -0500, Mark A. Hershberger wrote:
Good point. It still has some negative connotations, though. Stick to
single syllable words: If no one says anything, this is what I will do.
That's definitely a better wording of what I wanted to express, thanks.
andre
--
Andre
On Tue, 2012-11-13 at 14:16 -0500, Mark A. Hershberger wrote:
Good point. It still has some negative connotations, though. Stick to
single syllable words: If no one says anything, this is what I will do.
That's definitely a better wording for what I wanted to express.
Thanks.
andre
--
Andre
Andre Klapper aklap...@wikimedia.org wrote in message
news:1352303717.10307.18.ca...@embrace.foo...
On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 14:10 -0800, Quim Gil wrote:
Andre, I don't think we need a new resolution WAITING_FOR_UPSTREAM.
After reading Krinkle's and your email I agree that there is no urgent
Hi Daniel,
On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 22:56 -0800, Daniel Friesen wrote:
Things with the lowest priority should be things that could be fixed.
But we've got no reason to implement ourselves.
LATER should be things that for some technical reason outside our control,
right-now we cannot fix.
Is
On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 14:10 -0800, Quim Gil wrote:
Andre, I don't think we need a new resolution WAITING_FOR_UPSTREAM.
After reading Krinkle's and your email I agree that there is no urgent
need for it. This could still be reevaluated in the future.
andre
--
Andre Klapper | Wikimedia
Hi,
[See my comments inline]
Quim: Thanks for the wonderful analogy and bringing this up again.
The question boils down to:
How and why do people use RESOLVED LATER?
The same topic was discussed one year ago in
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2011-November/056583.html
On Nov 6, 2012, at 2:44 PM, Andre Klapper aklap...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 02:24 +0100, Krinkle wrote:
We have the following indications that should be used instead:
* blockers / dependencies
* status ASSIGNED
* keyword upstream
* priority low or lowest
* severity minor
Hi,
I made the exact same argument a while back (Dropping the LATER resolution
in Bugzilla
http://wikimedia.7.n6.nabble.com/Dropping-the-LATER-resolution-in-Bugzilla-td743804.html
)
+1
D
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Quim Gil quim...@gmail.com wrote:
I was a bit of a lazy child, specially
How many of them depend on action from somebody else?
(eg. upstream fixing its tool)
Of course, if we are waiting for upstream, it should list the upstream
bug id, have upstream keyword, someone actually noticing when it's
fixed, etc. but those are form issues, not the status.
(and yes,
Personally, I like having a Postponed/Later resolution at least
available.
WONTFIX = We acknowledge this is a valid bug, but are choosing not to fix
it due to time and resources necessary to fix it. We will not be
revisiting this bug unless it is re-raised by others.
LATER = We acknowledge this
On 05/11/2012 16:02, Nabil Maynard wrote:
Personally, I like having a Postponed/Later resolution at least
available.
WONTFIX = We acknowledge this is a valid bug, but are choosing not to fix
it due to time and resources necessary to fix it. We will not be
revisiting this bug unless it is
I suppose that depends on the particular project. From the sounds of it,
the discussion is about removing LATER as a resolution option across the
entire database, including some projects that do have specific people
driving development (some extensions, for instance). There is also
absolutely no
On 11/05/2012 03:02 PM, Nabil Maynard wrote:
WONTFIX = We acknowledge this is a valid bug, but are choosing not to fix
it due to time and resources necessary to fix it. We will not be
revisiting this bug unless it is re-raised by others.
LATER = We acknowledge this is a valid bug, and we agree
On Nov 5, 2012, at 11:54 PM, Platonides platoni...@gmail.com wrote:
How many of them depend on action from somebody else?
(eg. upstream fixing its tool)
Of course, if we are waiting for upstream, it should list the upstream
bug id, have upstream keyword, someone actually noticing when it's
-1
There is an important difference between WONTFIX and LATER.
WONTFIX is something rejected because it's a bad idea, etc...
LATER is something rejected because there are technical reasons we can't
do it any time soon now. But in the future after some major even it's
possible that we can
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Quim Gil quim...@gmail.com wrote:
What about removing the LATER resolution from our Bugzilla? It feels like
sweeping reports under the carpet. If a team is convinced that something
won't be addressed any time soon then they can WONTFIX. If anybody feels
26 matches
Mail list logo
